enabiz_login_start

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses that the tool sends an SMS OTP and returns a status indicating SMS is required. Given annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), this adds useful context about the mutation (sending SMS) without contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is just two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-step authentication tool, the description fully covers what the tool does, its side effect (sending SMS), and how to proceed. The output schema is not detailed, but the description adequately explains the expected response.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details; it correctly mentions the implicit use of .env credentials, which is sufficient.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states that the tool starts E-Nabız login (step 1/2), validates credentials from .env, and triggers an SMS OTP. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling `enabiz_login_verify` by naming it as the next step.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains that this is the first step and that if the returned step is 'sms_required', the user should use `enabiz_login_verify`. It implicitly requires .env credentials. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.